Bruh. You were being a prick about it long before he called you out on a being said prick. It's why he called you a prick.
ysjet
No, we don't agree. You're a MAGA trying to blame Joe Biden for the evils of other people, or even the inactions of other people. Biden isn't a prosecutor, nor is he a judge.
Nice name by the way, rather gives you away.
Oh,, fuck that shit, no, the reason we're in this mess to begin with is because rich douchebags won't get their fucking dicks out of politics because woe is them someone might actually take their ill-begotten gains to benefit everyone, so they propped up a fucking fascist and then bought all the media to make idiots like you blame Biden for it.
This sort of dipshittery is exactly why the democratic party keeps trotting out center-right nobodies that fail to energize their base, and why actual progressives like Mamdani are doing so well despite widespread attempts by the left AND right to pretend he's not.
To be as polite as possible on the matter? Shut the fuck up, and take your lies elsewhere.
my man, my only experience with your comments is this very thread, and that's all I need to know that your bans were justified. Your ban from this community is going to be justified too.
The problem is, who do you define as professionals? I'm a professional software engineer. I argue that there is no responsible way to use AI at the moment- it uses too many resources for a far too worthless result. Everything useful that an AI can do is currently better (and cheaper) to do another way, save perhaps live transcription.
Do you define Sam Altman as a professional? Because his guidance wants the entire world to give up 10% of the worldwide GDP to his company (yes, seriously!) He's clearly touched in the head, or on drugs. Should we follow his advice?
The problem is that there's basically no way to use it responsibly.
Yes? The shapes of countries- and their relation to other countries around them- is literally the most important part of learning geography in some respects, because of how much that shape is influenced by- and has been influenced by- the surroundings, the socioeconomic and sociopolitical history, etc etc.
The problem with that is that it gives a completely incorrect idea of what an individual country looks like, in a way that gives a false impression to kids about what the countries even look like. Suddenly they have to look at one map, and recognize a country, and then look at a zoomed in, more accurate map, and recognize it in a completely different shape. To be frank, most people's geography knowledge is already bad enough- doubling the amount of shapes they need to learn is basically a non-starter.
For classroom instruction, a globe should be being used anyway- that's the gold standard. Why go through all the work and effort of introducing a worse solution, that doubles the amount of studying, and is made completely useless when it can be replaced by a $10 globe?
Actually, fun fact, the entire point of the Mercator projection is that it DOES maintain shapes/angles, just not scale. It's a nautical map, it's for sailing. That's why when you look at a mercator map and a globe, the countries look about the same, just potentially different sizes- because that's literally the point of it.
I'm going to be honest, this just looks utterly useless for any country that isn't south africa, and ESPECIALLY useless for any country in the northern hemisphere.
Like, yes, sure, you've made all the country's areas roughly equal, but also every single country that isn't south africa is a distorted, warped mess that looks nothing like its actual shape.
Look at parts of europe- every country is a COMPLETELY USELESS shape. Three quarters of them have been turned into diagonal lines. How the fuck is that useful? Europe is the worst area in that regard, but by no means the only one.
It makes it literally useless as a map.
You need to remember that right wingers are pretty terrible at recognizing their own bias. When Robinson's friends are like 'we're a completely political neutral discord, praise God almighty', you need to understand what's actually being said when they also claim that Robinson was 'politically neutral.'